INDIA AGREES ALTERNATIVE IS NECESSARY TO

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 000114 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PHUM PREL KISL KDEM PGOV OPDC UNGA IN SUBJECT: INDIA AGREES ALTERNATIVE IS NECESSARY TO "DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS" RESOLUTION REF: NEW DELHI 02548 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: Ambassador Kozak and PolCouns on January 22 met with Rajiva Misra, Joint Secretary for United Nations Economic and Social (UNES) Division at the Ministry of External Affairs, to discuss USG concerns about the "defamation of religions" resolution and the related OIC-backed Protocol treaty on complementary standards, and to gain support for the USG "Action Plan to Combat Racial and Religious Discrimination and Intolerance." ¶2. (SBU) Joint Secretary Misra, India's decision-making authority on UN social issues, welcomed Ambassador Kozak and expressed sincere appreciation of Ambassador Kozak's effort to discuss this matter. Misra acknowledged that this issue was an important dimension of the US-India relationship and thanked the Ambassador for making it a priority. ¶3. (SBU) Pointing out that Secretary Clinton has taken a particular interest in this issue because of the potential for creating popular expectations that cannot be fulfilled, Ambassador Kozak emphasized that our goal was to provide a realistic solution to a legitimate problem without undermining the basic freedoms of individuals. Given that the only solution being offered ) before the Action Plan was proposed ) was a protocol that neither the US or Europe would accept, it is up to countries in positions of leadership to bring this debate to a realistic solution which can command broad consensus. Misra understood this and promised to direct India's Permanent Mission in Geneva to examine the Action Plan prior to the March HRC session. End Summary. "We Must Move Forward" -------------- ¶4. (SBU) Misra agreed with the necessity of moving away from remaining silent (read: abstaining) on the issue. "What has happened so far is far from satisfactory; we need to move forward and find a way of having a broader discussion" Misra reflected, responding to Ambassador Kozak's remarks about Pakistan's refusal to accept any other arguments but the ones the OIC had put forth in the complementary standards treaty. ¶5. (SBU) Misra agreed with Ambassador Kozak that current proposals by the OIC are an invitation to dictatorial governments to legitimize their oppressive behaviors. Making it clear that the USG would reject any proposal that would infringe on our constitutional obligation to protect freedom of expression, Ambassador Kozak assured the Joint Secretary that we are flexible in our position and are eager to come up with a plan that produces a result rather than continue to go down a road which leads to irreconcilable differences. Misra recognized that countries in key leadership positions such as India would need to help move this debate into an area where it can be dealt with more appropriately in order to create consensus rather than divisions, and he promised to request India's Ambassador in Geneva to examine the alternatives more carefully in order to determine how India might play a more active and positive role. Minor Concerns Addressed -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Misra pointed out two drawbacks to the Action Plan: 1) some countries, including India, may take issue with the "onerous" reporting requirements due to either capacity constraints or replication of already existing mechanisms in countries that are compliant with items called for in the Action Plan, and 2) the Action Plan may be perceived by Islamic countries as a tool to stall a decision on the issue at hand. Ambassador Kozak reassured Misra that the Action Plan is a notional document and not meant to create an onerous process but rather is intended to provide an alternative to countries which, like India, do not agree with the "defamation of religions" resolution. Furthermore, if enacted, a binding instrument would be much more problematic than the Action Plan which provides a "self checklist" as opposed to an outside regulating body, explained Ambassador Kozak. Addressing the concern that some may see it as a way NEW DELHI 00000114 002 OF 002 to stall the protocol and/or defamation of religions resolution, the Ambassador noted that the OIC proposals were creating an impasse that had stalled any real address of the legitimate concerns of Muslim communities. We were looking for a way to move toward a solution in the real world. ¶7. (SBU) Misra was curious about what kind of response to the Action Plan we have received from other HRC members and seemed particularly reassured by the Ambassador's mention of Latin American countries favoring this approach over a protocol. "Even within the OIC, there are countries that want to see something that produces progress rather than conflict," Ambassador Kozak explained. Action Plan: Best Alternative Given Timeline -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Misra appeared to give Ambassador Kozak's points much thought and pondered whether a technical process to study existing UN bodies and other treaties that already address these issues and how they are reported might help at this stage. After the two discussed this option, Misra concluded that time was insufficient for assigning a technical body and that a more concrete alternative would need to be presented at the HRC session in March. ¶9. (SBU) To drive the point home, Ambassador Kozak stressed that our joint goal should be to demonstrate that we are doing something to address the concerns at hand and not let this reach a point where we would be forced to oppose the protocol. Misra assured Ambassador Kozak that India would collaborate with the USG and also consult within the Non-Aligned Movement and the G-77 in order to provide us with feedback. ¶10. (SBU) Comment: Misra appeared to be very interested in the USG's analysis of this issue and by the end of the meeting - which lasted almost two hours - Misra decided it would be important for him to attend the upcoming March session of the Human Rights Council on countering racial and religious discrimination. Post will continue to press UNES Division to use its influence within the NAM and G-77 to consider an alternative to the defamation of religions resolution and the OIC protocol, especially as we approach the upcoming HRC session in Geneva this March. End Comment. ¶11. (U) Ambassador Kozak cleard this cable. ROEMER